The Supreme Court agreed to hear Evenwel v. Abbott, a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.” Richard Hasen examines the case in an editorial in Slate Magazine. The NCSL Canvass considers the ramifications of the fact that most of the equipment in use around the nation was bought with federal money made available through the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) – before smartphones were invented, and even iPods were new technology – and a significant portion of the country uses equipment that was bought well before that. A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a Montana case could make it more difficult for states to defend their restrictions on the amount of money that individual donors give candidates in state elections. A bill that would allow major political parties to hold a presidential-preference primary election passed the Nevada Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee on Thursday — a day after the same committee voted against the measure. A mandate to replace AVS WINVote voting machines has stretched the budgets of some Virginia localities. Burundian president Pierre Nkurunziza’s controversial bid to stand for a third term in office suffered a new blow on Saturday after it emerged a top a election official had fled the country and the newly-elected UK government has ruled out extending the right to vote in the upcoming EU referendum to all British citizens living abroad, despite a promise made by the Conservative party chairman that it would.
What makes you lose sleep?” That’s what NCSL staff asked members of the National Association of State Election Directors back in September 2012. The answer wasn’t voter ID, or early voting, or turnout, as we expected. Instead, it was this: “Our equipment is aging, and we aren’t sure we’ll have workable equipment for our citizens to vote on beyond 2016.”That was NCSL’s wake-up call to get busy and learn how elections and technology work together. We’ve spent much of the last two years focusing on that through the Elections Technology Project, funded by the MacArthur Foundation. One thing we learned is that virtually all election policy choices have a technology component. Just two examples: vote centers and all-mail elections. While both can be debated based on such values as their effect on voters, election officials and budgets, neither can be decided without considering technology. Vote centers rely on e-poll books, and all-mail elections depend on optical scan equipment to handle volumes of paper ballots.Below are nine more takeaways we’ve learned recently and that legislators might like to know too. Most of the equipment in use around the nation was bought with federal money made available through the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). That was before smartphones were invented, and even iPods were new technology. And a significant portion of the country uses equipment that was bought well before that.Full Article: States and Election Reform | The Canvass: May 2015.
In November 1963, Evelyn Butts, a seamstress and mother of three from Norfolk, Virginia, filed the first lawsuit in federal court challenging her state’s $1.50 poll tax. Annie Harper, a retired domestic worker from Fairfax County, filed a companion suit five months later. In March 1966, the Supreme Court overruled two previous decisions and overturned Virginia’s poll tax, stating that economic status could not be an obstacle to casting a ballot. “Fee payments or wealth, like race, creed, or color, are unrelated to the citizen’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process,” wrote Justice William Douglas in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections. “We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.” Six years later, in Bullock v. Carter, the Supreme Court held that economic status could not be the primary impediment for those seeking elected office, striking down a system of filing fees in Texas that charged prospective candidates up to $8,900 to place their name on the ballot. “We would ignore reality,” wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger, “were we not to recognize that this system falls with unequal weight on voters, as well as candidates, according to their economic status.”Full Article: How the Money Primary Is Undermining Voting Rights | The Nation.
Editorials: Only Voters Count? Conservatives ask the Supreme Court to restrict states’ rights and overturn precedent. | Richard Hasen/Slate
For the second time in a year, the Supreme Court has agreed to wade into an election case at the urging of conservatives. In both cases it has done so despite the issue appearing to be settled by long-standing precedent. In a case expected to be decided next month, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, conservatives asked the court to bar states from using independent redistricting commissions to draw congressional lines. In a case the court agreed to hear Tuesday, Evenwel v. Abbott, conservatives asked the court to require states to draw their legislative district lines in a particular way: Rather than considering the total population in each district, conservatives argue, the lines should instead divide districts according to the number of people registered or eligible to vote. Most states use total population for drawing districts, which includes noncitizens, children, felons, and others ineligible to vote. In both Supreme Court cases, there is great irony in the fact that they are being brought by conservatives, who usually claim to respect precedents and states’ rights. The challengers are not only asking the court to revisit issues that seemed to be settled by decades-old precedent. If successful, these cases will undermine federalism by limiting states’ rights to design their own political systems.Full Article: Evenwel v. Abbott Supreme Court case: State districts count voters or total population..
“One person, one vote” is a deceptively simple promise, but a Texas woman wants to clarify which persons count. On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Evenwel v. Abbott, a suit that challenges exactly who should be counted as a person when states draw their district boundaries in pursuit of proportional representation.The plaintiffs are challenging the usual method (counting total number of people living in a district) and are asking that states use the total number of eligible voters instead. The trouble is, we don’t have robust statistics on the number of eligible voters. If the Supreme Court were to set new standards for districting, we would need to overhaul the nation’s statistics and surveys.Full Article: The ‘One Person, One Vote’ Case Relies On Statistics That Nobody Has | FiveThirtyEight.
Editorials: What if congressional districts were drawn based on voters, not total population? | Philip Bump/The Washington Post
A case before the Supreme Court raises an esoteric but important question: Who do politicians represent? Our Amber Phillips has a thorough explanation of the ins-and-outs of the case. But the essential question is whether political districts should be drawn based on the number of people that live in the district, or based on the number of people in that district that can vote. The idea is that in districts where there are a lot of people but not a lot of eligible voters, those voters are more powerful given that they can have a larger effect on the outcome of any given election. It doesn’t take long to see all sorts of questions that the distinction draws. Should we count people who can vote or people who do vote? How does that shift the priorities of the official who wins the right to represent the district?Full Article: What if congressional districts were drawn based on voters, not total population? - The Washington Post.
A joint committee of the legislature reviewed election reforms in Colorado to try to reverse the state’s trend of declining voter participation. A key strategy used in Colorado was to mail ballots to every registered voter whether or not they request it. “You put a ballot in the mailbox of every registered voter and surprise, surprise most of them mail it back,” said Secretary of State Alex Padilla.Full Article: California Looks At Colorado Voter Reform Model | FOX40.
Blind voters in Alameda County may soon have an easier time voting in privacy after settling a lawsuit requiring better testing and upkeep of audio equipment that allows them to cast push-button secret ballots. The settlement follows a 2013 federal court ruling that applies disability law to the ballot box. The legal advocacy group Disability Rights Advocates announced the three-year settlement Wednesday after approval by county supervisors earlier this month. Prompted by blind voters’ complaints about equipment breakdowns in the 2012 elections, the agreement includes requirements for pre-election testing of each machine, hands-on training of poll workers, and an election day hotline to quickly repair or replace nonfunctioning equipment.Full Article: Alameda County settles suit with blind voters - SFGate.
Hawaii may figure prominently when the Supreme Court this fall considers a case where plaintiffs are seeking to have legislative districts drawn based on a count of eligible voters rather than the total number of residents. That’s because for nearly half a century, the Aloha State has had the high court’s permission to ignore transients when drawing its political maps. While the Constitution requires equal population among legislative districts, a principle known as one-person, one-vote, a 1966 opinion said that Hawaii’s “special population problems” justified using registered voters as the baseline. The problem, as Hawaii saw it, was the large concentration of military facilities on Oahu. Counting tens of thousands of service members would distort the electoral maps by awarding legislative seats to military bases.Full Article: Hawaii Military Carve Out May Play Role in Voting District Case - Law Blog - WSJ.
Clerk Inez Brown could be required to attend training school and have her office’s election work approved by the Genesee County Clerk John Gleason under the provisions of a bill approved today, May 27, by the state House Elections Committee. The substitute bill would allow Flint to have a standard primary election in August despite no mayoral candidates having turned in nominating petitions on time after Brown’s office gave them the wrong filing deadline.Full Article: Bill to fix Flint primary could send clerk to election training | MLive.com.
A bill that would allow major political parties to hold a presidential-preference primary election on the last Tuesday of February died in the Nevada Legislature Thursday when it did not receive enough vote to pass the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. The committee voted 6-4 to kill the bill after an amendment was attached that would allow a political party to hold a presidential primary in February – paid for by the state – and leave the rest of the state and local primary election in June.Full Article: Presidential primary bill fails; Issue not dead yet.
North Carolina: Voters file lawsuit challenging state’s latest redistricting | Greensboro News & Record
A group of voters from throughout North Carolina have filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that the state’s legislative districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit is only the latest legal action challenging a 2011 redistricting. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the N.C. Supreme Court to take another look at how the legislative districts were drawn. The state Supreme Court in December had ruled in favor of the current legislative districts in a lawsuit that was originally filed in Wake County Superior Court.Full Article: N.C. voters file lawsuit challenging state's latest redistricting - Greensboro News & Record: News.
The right for Virgin Islanders to vote for president of the United States is gaining advocates through a new project. “We the People Project” is a nonprofit organization that fights to achieve equal rights and representation for residents of U.S. territories. Around 50 locals interested in equal voting rights for U.S. citizens living in the Virgin Islands attended an informational meeting Wednesday. Neil Weare, president and founder of “We the People Project,” said people in the territories want full rights. “They should not be treated like second-class citizens. It’s time to move beyond a 115-year-old doctrine. Together we can make the argument that where you live shouldn’t make a difference in your voting rights.”Full Article: Equal Voting Rights Movement Begins in the Territory | St. Croix Source.
Utah: Mailing It In: Salt Lake City is switching to a vote-by-mail system for this year’s municipal race |Salt Lake City Weekly
Stay home on Election Day, if you prefer. This year, Salt Lake City is using a hybrid system of voting for the mayoral and district primaries, as well as general elections. The new structure combines a pure vote-by-mail system that mails ballots to all registered voters while operating at fewer physical polling locations than a traditional election. Following a trend set by other municipalities in Utah—and throughout the country—emphasizing vote-by-mail, Salt Lake City will operate only four polling locations for those who still choose to vote in person. Salt Lake County is conducting the election for the city and opted not to operate traditional polls in Salt Lake City a traditional system anyway, because of the decrepit state of the county’s voting machines. The Salt Lake County Clerk’s office will also oversee the elections for all other cities in the county, with the exception of Taylorsville and West Valley City (which declined vote-by-mail and will instead use a consolidated system, with fewer polling locations).Full Article: Mailing It In | News | Salt Lake City Weekly.
States may cap political donors’ campaign contributions only if they can show that those limits are preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. The ruling by a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a Montana case could make it more difficult for states to defend their restrictions on the amount of money that individual donors give candidates in state elections. States can limit contributions if they have a legitimate interest in doing so. But proving that state interest has changed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case that said corporations can spend unlimited amounts in elections, a three-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.Full Article: Court reverses ruling on Montana campaign contribution limits.
The Republican challenger to Virginia House Speaker William J. Howell on Wednesday sued the state over what she says is a change in absentee-ballot rules that gives the speaker an unfair advantage ahead of next month’s primary. Susan Stimpson, a former Stafford County supervisor and onetime Howell protege, filed suit in Stafford County Circuit Court against the state Board of Elections. The lawsuit is part of a bitter Republican primary contest between Howell, a 28-year incumbent, and Stimpson in the Fredericksburg-area district. She has accused Howell of favoring tax-and-spend policies out of line with conservative principles, while he has trumpeted his connection to the district and leadership of the Republican House supermajority.Full Article: Challenger to Va. House speaker sues state over absentee ballot issue - The Washington Post.
Yakima will file a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a case that could upend the city’s new elections system, but it narrowly voted against asking for a partial stay in the upcoming elections. The City Council on Wednesday unanimously asked its attorneys to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in Evenwel v. Abbott, a Texas case that seeks to define the “one person, one vote” principle. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case sometime in the next year.Full Article: Yakima to submit amicus brief in Supreme Court voting rights case | Local | yakimaherald.com.
The Catholic Church in Burundi has criticized upcoming elections, while the European Union’s election observers are downing tools until the situation improves. Fair elections are “impossible,” the opposition claims. The European Union suspended its observer mission in Burundi on Thursday because of the crackdown on the opposition and the media, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said on Thursday. The team, which the EU sent to Burundi over a month ago, can no longer fulfill its role of helping with “peaceful, credible and fair” elections, according to the EU’s top diplomat. “The election process continues to be seriously marred by restrictions on independent media, excessive use of force against demonstrators, a climate of intimidation for opposition parties and civil society and lack of confidence in the election authorities,” Mogherini said in a statement.Full Article: EU suspends mission to Burundi elections over violence | News | DW.DE | 28.05.2015.
Denmark: Prime Minister calls general election, saying voters must have say on spending | The Guardian
Denmark’s Social Democratic prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt has announced that parliamentary elections will be held on 18 June. She said the minority government, whose term ends in September, would not resign before the election, but that it was time for voters to have their say on its policies. “It’s the right time to ask Danes whether we should keep the course or if we want experiments by [the opposition],” Thorning-Schmidt told a news conference on Wednesday. The opposition centre-right bloc, led by former prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has a four-percentage-point lead in recent opinion polls. However, Thorning-Schmidt is ahead of Rasmussen in other polls when it comes to credibility.Full Article: Danish PM calls general election, saying voters must have say on spending | World news | The Guardian.
Independents are eligible to run in all states for the first time in June 7 elections. In the border state of Nuevo León, a candidate known as ‘El Bronco’ is energizing voters fed up with scandal-ridden parties. Standing next to a sign that counts down to June 7, Mexico’s election day, campaign worker Pablo Livas says he has been “wishing for another option” in politics for more than a decade. “We haven’t had the government we deserve,” he says. But today, a quick glance at Mr. Livas’s baseball cap reveals his new sense of hope. It reads simply: “I am El Bronco.” Mr. Livas is one of dozens of volunteers bustling around a former car dealership off a tree-lined square in Monterrey this week, intent on hawking Mexico’s newest model in political candidates: the independent.Full Article: Mexico elections: Will 'El Bronco' factor drive weary voters to the polls? (+video) - CSMonitor.com.